The case, Sackett v. EPA, was brought by a couple who had been fined by the EPA for filling in wetlands on their property in Montana.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 25, 2023, ruled in a 6-3 decision that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have broad authority to regulate water pollution under the Clean Water Act.
The case, Sackett v. EPA, was brought by a couple who had been fined by the EPA for filling in wetlands on their property in Montana. The couple argued that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate wetlands that were not connected to navigable waterways.
The Supreme Court agreed with the couple, finding that the Clean Water Act only gives the EPA authority to regulate pollution that “waters of the United States”. The Court held that wetlands that are not connected to navigable waterways are not “waters of the United States” and therefore are not subject to EPA regulation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major setback for the EPA’s efforts to address water pollution. The ruling makes it more difficult for the EPA to regulate pollution from a variety of sources, including runoff from farms and construction sites, as well as discharges from industrial facilities.
The ruling is also likely to have a significant impact on the EPA’s ability to protect wetlands, which play an important role in filtering pollutants from water and providing habitat for wildlife.
The ruling has been met with criticism from environmental groups and some lawmakers. They argue that the ruling will make it more difficult to protect the environment and public health. They also argue that the ruling is a gift to polluters.
The ruling has been praised by some business groups and some lawmakers. They argue that the ruling will reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and that it will protect jobs. They also argue that the ruling is a victory for states’ rights.
The consequences of the decision
The consequences of the decision for the EPA’s efforts to address water pollution are likely to be significant. The EPA will have to find new ways to regulate pollution from sources that are now outside of its jurisdiction.
This could lead to increased litigation, as businesses and individuals challenge the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution. The US Environmental Protection Agency may also have to rely more on state and local governments to help address water pollution.
The decision is also likely to have a negative impact on the environment. Wetlands play an important role in filtering pollutants from water and providing habitat for wildlife. The decision could make it more difficult to protect wetlands, which could lead to increased pollution and harm to wildlife.
Experts’ reaction on the decision
Environmental experts have widely criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA. They argue that the ruling will make it more difficult to protect the environment and public health. They also argue that the ruling is a gift to polluters.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said that the ruling is a “devastating blow to the Clean Water Act.” The NRDC said that the ruling “will make it easier for polluters to dump their waste into our rivers, lakes, and streams.”
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) also criticized the ruling, saying that it is a “major setback for clean water.” The EDF said that the ruling “will make it harder to protect our nation’s waters from pollution.”
The Sierra Club also criticized the ruling, saying that it is a “disaster for clean water.” The Sierra Club said that the ruling “will make it easier for polluters to poison our rivers, lakes, and streams.”
The ruling has also been criticized by some lawmakers.
Senator Tom Carper from Delaware, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the ruling is “a major setback for our efforts to protect our nation’s waters.” Senator Carper said that the ruling “will make it harder to hold polluters accountable.”
Congressman Raúl Grijalva from Arizona, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, also criticized the ruling, saying that it is “a devastating blow to our efforts to protect our nation’s water.” Congressman Grijalva said that the ruling “will make it easier for polluters to dump their waste into our rivers, lakes, and streams.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA is a significant development in the fight against water pollution. The ruling will make it more difficult for the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pollution from a variety of sources, and it is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and public health.